pcm_import_ied

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'MODIFIES THE PROJECT' in all caps and states the environment variable and confirmation gate requirements. This is meaningful behavioral safety context beyond what structured data provides. However, it doesn't describe side effects on existing IED data or whether the operation is reversible beyond the snapshot mention.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the key safety warning ('MODIFIES THE PROJECT') immediately. Every sentence earns its place: file formats, safety requirement, target_level constraints, and snapshot guidance. The line-break structure makes requirements scannable at a glance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write/mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical gaps: mutating behavior, environment requirement, confirmation flag, and valid target values. The tool has an output schema which the description need not explain. Given the mutation semantics and zero annotation coverage, this is reasonably complete, though more detail on import behavior (overwrite vs. merge) would strengthen it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the valid values for target_level (bay, voltage-level, substation) and documents the confirm gating mechanism. However, it does not explain the exact nature of ied_file path/format expectations or the project parameter semantics beyond what the schema's parameter names convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Import), resource (IED file), file formats (.apcmi/.apcmt/.pcmi/.pcmt), and destination (into a project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pcm_import_scd and pcm_import_parameters by specifying IED files specifically. The tool name already conveys the primary purpose, and the description reinforces it with concrete file extensions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states the write requirement (PCM_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=1 and confirm=true) and enumerates valid target_level values. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for similar operations, leaving the user to infer from sibling names. The 'Snapshots first' instruction provides important ordering guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.